*Our sources tell us that FICAC searched the companies office files under Ref # 2021RC 000178 and they could not find any annual |  |
 |  |
*FICAC had already commenced an investigation into a complaint involving Pacific Polytech, Ganesh Chand, Biman Prasad, his wife Rajni Khausal Chand, and Pacific Polytech’s accountant. However, the then-FICAC Commissioner, Barbara Malimali, closed the entire file on questionable grounds, claiming that Biman Prasad was not required to declare his superannuation fund. This decision effectively allowed him to avoid FICAC scrutiny relating to Pacific Polytech.
*Perhaps, it is now a necessity to open a case against Barbara Malimali for alleged Abuse of Office
 |  |
The former Finance Minister Biman Prasad attempted to shift the $7m allocation debate away from legality and due-process obligations, instead centring on emotional appeals about youth upliftment. However, public expenditure is not justified by aspirational rhetoric. It is constrained by statute. If the institution does not meet the legal threshold for eligibility, particularly full registration under the Higher Education Act, then the legality of the appropriation is the core question, not its purported social benefit.
*Public funding to a provisionally registered entity, if not authorised in law, cannot be immunised by humanitarian justification.
Good intentions do not cure unlawful expenditure.
  In Fiji, provisional registration under the Higher Education Act 2008 does not automatically entitle an institution to receive substantial public funding. It merely means the institution is allowed to operate while working toward full registration and quality assurance compliance. Eligibility for public grants usually depends on: |   |
- Meeting full FHEC accreditation standards
- Approved quality audit results
- Submission and approval of funding proposals
- Demonstrated capacity to deliver recognised qualifications
- Compliance with governance, financial, and reporting rules
The proper question for oversight
What must be examined is whether:
- Funding criteria required full registration or quality accreditation
- Funds were disbursed despite unresolved compliance issues
- Due diligence and audits were conducted before release of funds
- Conflicts of interest or political interference existed
- Use of funds complied with the Public Finance Management Act, tender rules, and FHEC funding procedures
Oversight actions normally triggered
If millions were granted while status was only provisional, red flags include:
- Possible breach of fiduciary responsibility
- Risk of misuse of public funds
- Need for audit by FHEC & Ministry of Finance
- Referral to FICAC if procurement, disclosure, or due-process irregularities exist
Conclusion
Based solely on provisional registration, there is no automatic entitlement to receive “millions” in government grants.
Eligibility depends on compliance and funding program criteria, and any large disbursement during provisional status would warrant scrutiny, documents review, and accountability questions.
Based solely on provisional registration, there is no automatic entitlement to receive “millions” in government grants.
Eligibility depends on compliance and funding program criteria, and any large disbursement during provisional status would warrant scrutiny, documents review, and accountability questions.
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad says Pacific Polytech had asked for more than $13 million, and the government is only allocating them $7 million.
As criticism mounts on the increased allocation to the institution over the years, the Finance Minister says some of these critics have nothing better to talk about.
Professor Prasad says the process of allocating funding to higher education institutions registered by the Higher Education Commission is based on the submissions that these institutions make and some of the recommendations that come from the Higher Education Commission.
He says in this case, Pacific Polytech asked for more than what they’ve been allocated.
The Finance Minister claims these critics have forgotten that institutions like Pacific Polytech are offering a second chance to many Fijians.
“They are putting thousands of youths, you know, who would be leaving school in Form 4, Form 5, and 6, instead of, you know, being on the street and engaging in drugs, etc., are ending up in these institutes and getting qualificationsfor which they get jobs.”
Prasad reiterated that though the allocations are being announced, the process to get the funding still needs to be followed.
As criticism mounts on the increased allocation to the institution over the years, the Finance Minister says some of these critics have nothing better to talk about.
Professor Prasad says the process of allocating funding to higher education institutions registered by the Higher Education Commission is based on the submissions that these institutions make and some of the recommendations that come from the Higher Education Commission.
He says in this case, Pacific Polytech asked for more than what they’ve been allocated.
The Finance Minister claims these critics have forgotten that institutions like Pacific Polytech are offering a second chance to many Fijians.
“They are putting thousands of youths, you know, who would be leaving school in Form 4, Form 5, and 6, instead of, you know, being on the street and engaging in drugs, etc., are ending up in these institutes and getting qualificationsfor which they get jobs.”
Prasad reiterated that though the allocations are being announced, the process to get the funding still needs to be followed.
Provisional Registration Is Not Legal Authorisation: A Formal Rebuttal to Minister Prasad’s Pacific Polytech Defence and the Emerging Questions of Illicit Public Funding
Summary of the Minister’s Statement to FBC (9 July 2025)
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (now former), Professor Biman Prasad, defended the continued and increasing public funding of Pacific Polytech. He argued that:
Pacific Polytech requested $13m but government allocated $7m.
The former Finance Minister Biman Prasad's remarks attempted to shift debate away from legality and due-process obligations, instead centring on emotional appeals about youth upliftment.
However, public expenditure is not justified by aspirational rhetoric. It is constrained by statute. If the institution does not meet the legal threshold for eligibility, particularly full registration under the Higher Education Act, then the legality of the appropriation is the core question, not its purported social benefit.
Public funding to a provisionally registered entity, if not authorised in law, cannot be immunised by humanitarian justification. Good intentions do not cure unlawful expenditure.
Provisional Registration Does Not Confer Eligibility for Public Funding
The Higher Education Act establishes a clear regulatory regime:
Provisional entities are, by design, not yet compliant. Treating provisional status as if it were full recognition collapses the statutory distinction and frustrates legislative purpose.
Funds allocated to an entity not lawfully entitled to them are ultra vires unless Parliament expressly authorised an exemption. No such exemption appears to exist.
This is not a policy disagreement. It is an issue of legality.
Ignoring Statutory Requirements Constitutes Misuse of Public Office
If funds were provided to an institution lacking legal standing to receive them, questions arise under:
Section 139 of the Fiji Constitution requires public spending to comply with law.
Ministerial discretion does not override statutory frameworks.
Where an official knowingly allocates funds contrary to law, or recklessly disregards statutory requirements, misconduct in public office may be made out.
Procedural Validation After Allocation Is Not a Defence
The then Finance Minister Biman Prasad asserted that “though the allocations were being announced, the process to get the funding still needed to be followed.”
This is fundamentally backwards.
Compliance must precede allocation, not retrospectively legitimise it. A “fund now, check later” approach is emblematic of maladministration and potential criminality.
To treat process as a post-hoc box-ticking exercise is to invert the rule of law and nullify procurement and grant compliance systems.
Public Commentary About “Critics With Nothing Better to Do” Is Misplaced
Ministers are fiduciaries of public money.
Scrutiny is not a nuisance. It is a constitutional duty of citizens and media.
Attempting to belittle criticism sidesteps substantive legal questions and raises further concern about accountability culture.
Possible Offences
If the facts confirm that Pacific Polytech lacked legal qualification when public funds were approved or disbursed, potential offences include:
Further, any civil servant or commission officer who facilitated the allocation knowing the institution was only provisionally registered may face liability for aiding unlawful expenditure.
The then Finance Minister Biman Prasad's July statements did not address the central legal issue: provisional registration is not accreditation. Provisional status signals an institution is not yet fit for full recognition.
Funding such an entity without a clear legal basis risks criminal and constitutional breach.
Public money is not discretionary largesse. (Baap Ke Paisa-Father's Money)
It is held in trust.
And trust is not a substitute for statutory compliance.
The appropriate course now is:
Meanwhile, rhetoric about helping youth does not cure illegality. If the law was breached, accountability must follow. FICAC must re-open its file on Pacific Polytech.
Summary of the Minister’s Statement to FBC (9 July 2025)
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (now former), Professor Biman Prasad, defended the continued and increasing public funding of Pacific Polytech. He argued that:
Pacific Polytech requested $13m but government allocated $7m.
- Criticism is unwarranted and politically motivated.
- Funding decisions follow Higher Education Commission submissions and recommendations.
- The institution provides “a second chance” to young people at risk of falling into crime or drugs.
- Allocations are ongoing but proper processes will still follow.
The former Finance Minister Biman Prasad's remarks attempted to shift debate away from legality and due-process obligations, instead centring on emotional appeals about youth upliftment.
However, public expenditure is not justified by aspirational rhetoric. It is constrained by statute. If the institution does not meet the legal threshold for eligibility, particularly full registration under the Higher Education Act, then the legality of the appropriation is the core question, not its purported social benefit.
Public funding to a provisionally registered entity, if not authorised in law, cannot be immunised by humanitarian justification. Good intentions do not cure unlawful expenditure.
Provisional Registration Does Not Confer Eligibility for Public Funding
The Higher Education Act establishes a clear regulatory regime:
- Provisional registration is a transitional, conditional status.
- It grants no automatic entitlement to state funding.
- It exists to allow institutions to build capacity and meet standards before they are treated as eligible higher-education providers.
Provisional entities are, by design, not yet compliant. Treating provisional status as if it were full recognition collapses the statutory distinction and frustrates legislative purpose.
Funds allocated to an entity not lawfully entitled to them are ultra vires unless Parliament expressly authorised an exemption. No such exemption appears to exist.
This is not a policy disagreement. It is an issue of legality.
Ignoring Statutory Requirements Constitutes Misuse of Public Office
If funds were provided to an institution lacking legal standing to receive them, questions arise under:
- Public Finance Management Act
- Financial Management Act
- Penal Code offences relating to abuse of office and unlawful expenditure
- Corruption statutes (FICAC Act)
Section 139 of the Fiji Constitution requires public spending to comply with law.
Ministerial discretion does not override statutory frameworks.
Where an official knowingly allocates funds contrary to law, or recklessly disregards statutory requirements, misconduct in public office may be made out.
Procedural Validation After Allocation Is Not a Defence
The then Finance Minister Biman Prasad asserted that “though the allocations were being announced, the process to get the funding still needed to be followed.”
This is fundamentally backwards.
Compliance must precede allocation, not retrospectively legitimise it. A “fund now, check later” approach is emblematic of maladministration and potential criminality.
To treat process as a post-hoc box-ticking exercise is to invert the rule of law and nullify procurement and grant compliance systems.
Public Commentary About “Critics With Nothing Better to Do” Is Misplaced
Ministers are fiduciaries of public money.
Scrutiny is not a nuisance. It is a constitutional duty of citizens and media.
Attempting to belittle criticism sidesteps substantive legal questions and raises further concern about accountability culture.
Possible Offences
If the facts confirm that Pacific Polytech lacked legal qualification when public funds were approved or disbursed, potential offences include:
- Abuse of Office (Crimes Act)
- Causing financial prejudice to the State
- Official corruption (FICAC Act)
- Breach of duty by public officers
- Failure to comply with public finance law
Further, any civil servant or commission officer who facilitated the allocation knowing the institution was only provisionally registered may face liability for aiding unlawful expenditure.
The then Finance Minister Biman Prasad's July statements did not address the central legal issue: provisional registration is not accreditation. Provisional status signals an institution is not yet fit for full recognition.
Funding such an entity without a clear legal basis risks criminal and constitutional breach.
Public money is not discretionary largesse. (Baap Ke Paisa-Father's Money)
It is held in trust.
And trust is not a substitute for statutory compliance.
The appropriate course now is:
- Immediate audit of all allocations made to Pacific Polytech.
- Independent legal review of the funding authorisation process.
- If confirmed unlawful, referral to FICAC and police for investigation.
- Fijileaks: FICAC was already investigating a complaint against Pacific Polytech, Ganesh Chand, Biman Prasad, his wife Rajni Khausal Chand, and Polytech's accountant, when the then FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali closed Biman Prasad's ENTIRE FILE on spurious grounds that he did not have to declare his superannuation fund so he was free to escape FICAC investigations. Perhaps, it is now a necessity to open a case against Malimali for alleged Abuse of Office.
Meanwhile, rhetoric about helping youth does not cure illegality. If the law was breached, accountability must follow. FICAC must re-open its file on Pacific Polytech.
